Wow, I'm surprised. Normally when I see something like that on Ananova, I google the topic and either get no other results or get a bunch of stories that list Ananova as their source (either way, pointing to a fake story). This one, though actually appears legitimate.

I do have a question though. Is there any chance that the growth could have been caused by people throwing their germ ridden hunks of metal, er... coins, into the pond / tank / whatever? Just wondering.

As for the question at hand if there was no loss to quality of life caused by the growth (and it sounds like there wasn't), then the surgery should not have been performed, especially since the fish is now short an eye.

I think it's a good thing. The lump couldnt have been good for fish. Parasite, cancer, injury, who knows. The loss of the eye is unfortunate, I feel bad for the little guy. But this pond is free of predators and has plenty of food - so he'll be fine one-eye short._________________20 gal tall planted

Okay, lets for instance say this happened in nature by itself. Supposedly the fish would be a "dis-abled" fish and would most and very likely die with in a short time since its functioning improperly and has obviously lost important eyesight and its natures call to put an end to its life. We as fish-keepers do the HUMANELY thing and that is to help it survive but at the same time the fish is a disabled one and its not as happy as it was before. I think in this case since it was one of the million goldfish in the world, they should have just euthanized and let it go its own way.

I think this was just a scam to bring more public and audience to the museum and get more profits. The scientists really didn't do much difference and it was just for their amusement. But the article is really focusing on the COSMETIC part and not really the right or wrong thing to do. I think they should have just euthanized it._________________Get attached, love everything now, then, suffer when it comes to an end, for it will bring great meaning to one's existence. JR

So if a fish develops a growth that is only a problem from an aesthetic viewpoint it should be euthanised? I think thats worse than at least allowing the animal to live. Removal was a questionable move, euthanization I think would be ridiculous in this case.